Appeal No. 96-1996
Application 08/181,075
front of pad 5, which is the manner of use disclosed, the spring
would have to be attached within the track of the sliding door,
thereby rendering the door unclosable.
The device disclosed in the Swiss reference is not intended
to be utilized to block a door from closing, much less to block a
sliding door from closing. From our perspective, the only way
this device could possibly be made to work with a sliding door is
to intercept the door with the side of pad 5 rather than the
front, a mode of operation not contemplated in the reference.
However, we fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or
incentive which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to do so. It therefore is our view that the Swiss reference
would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
method of preventing a sliding glass door from being completely
closed which is recited in independent claim 12, and thus it
fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard
to independent claim 12 or to claim 13, which depends therefrom.
The rejection of method claims 12 and 13 as being
unpatentable over the Swiss reference is not sustained.
Independent claim 15 is directed to an improvement in a
sliding closure assembly including a frame and a closure member,
and comprises a blocking member having two parallel opposed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007